Canon will reclaim their full-frame megapixel crown [CR1]

[unfocused]

I'm not criticizing Besisika for wanting to stand out. I'm making the observation that better gear isn't the way to get there.

Yes, but I think he has something in mind involving very high resolution images, which of course, would require specialized gear and technique. I jumped down his throat because his original post didn't really explain what he had in mind and it struck me that he was being a tad elitist about high resolution images. After some discussion, I think I have a better idea where he was coming from. I'm just trying to right my wrong.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Along those lines, I like to recognize Jerry Uelsmann, who can make better composites with film, chemicals, and a darkroom than I can with photoshop and a supercomputer, e.g., this 1976 print (untitled):

View attachment 185908

Jerry Uelsmann is a darkroom wizard!

 

[justaCanonuser]

I still use my 10D, 6mp Camera.

6mp is just the right size for Instagram. I always am amazed about those guys using a 40+ MP monster camera for their Instagram postings. Back in the 1970s John Martyn already wrote the right song for them: "some people are crrrrazy!"

 

[justaCanonuser]

Michael
Unfortunately, many of us birders are in that territory of verging on pixelation, just taking the centre 1500x1500 px or fewer. If I can get a 1000 px in length on a bird, I can usually get a good enough detailed image. But, I get what you mean.

As a birder (not only but I love doing it, did it yesterday again) I'd add that birding is a trade-off between pixel size and the light-motion problem. With the latter I mean that birds are often moving fast, smaller pixels require higher shutter speeds for freezing them sharply on the pixel level, but the amount of light available is finite. This is why I sometimes prefer to use my old 22 MP only FF 5D3 over my crop sensor 7D2, when I shoot birds. With less light, the 5D3's images tend to be much more "crisp" on the pixel level. So then I really prefer such a bird image over the 7D2's mushy output with more pixels in the bird's image area but less information on the pixel level. Of course, I know I could downsize an image to get about the same results (if the camera's sensor technologies are about comparable), but I love get the out-of-camera images as good as possible w/o too much post-processing. (Maybe I am sort of old-school-corrupted because I still shoot film in parallel to digital.)

 

[Don Haines]

As a birder (not only but I love doing it, did it yesterday again) I'd add that birding is a trade-off between pixel size and the light-motion problem. With the latter I mean that birds are often moving fast, smaller pixels require higher shutter speeds for freezing them sharply on the pixel level, but the amount of light available is finite. This is why I sometimes prefer to use my old 22 MP only FF 5D3 over my crop sensor 7D2, when I shoot birds. With less light, the 5D3's images tend to be much more "crisp" on the pixel level. So then I really prefer such a bird image over the 7D2's mushy output with more pixels in the bird's image area but less information on the pixel level. Of course, I know I could downsize an image to get about the same results (if the camera's sensor technologies are about comparable), but I love get the out-of-camera images as good as possible w/o too much post-processing. (Maybe I am sort of old-school-corrupted because I still shoot film in parallel to digital.)

CURSE THOSE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

I hit that same quandary a lot. The crop camera has a greater pixel density so I get more pixels on the target, but the FF camera puts better quality pixels on the target. If the light is great, I tend to go crop, and when it gets a bit dimmer (or I am not zoomed to the Max) I prefer to go FF. My crop camera is faster, but the FF camera seems to have more accurate AF. The crop has a far better spread of AF points.

And my phone beats them both for convenience......

And my P/S is waterproof with terrible ergonomics and IQ ....... but it is waterproof!

I find each has its place. No way will I say that one is better than the other for everything, it’s sort of a “right tool for the job” type of thing. We here a lot of comments on this forum about why can’t Canon make a camera that meets MY specific needs, but so often those needs are conflicting.

If Canon does come out with a high megapixel R, there will be a lot of cursing and wailing on this forum because “that isn’t the camera I want”, but for those it is targeted at it will be a great camera. For those who it isn’t for, be patient, your turn will come.

 

[unfocused]

...For those who it isn’t for, be patient, your turn will come.

Maybe. But, I think there are a lot of people waiting for a camera that Canon feels it has already released in the EOS R.

 

[Architect1776]

Maybe. But, I think there are a lot of people waiting for a camera that Canon feels it has already released in the EOS R.

I would have already likely purchased the R except for IBIS. My sole reason for going R mount is to use my FD, FL and R lenses without an optical element in the way, but I want IBIS as IS has spoiled me. Otherwise I am very happy with my 7D as it does very well thank you.

 

[justaCanonuser]

CURSE THOSE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

CURSE THOSE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

If Canon does come out with a high megapixel R, there will be a lot of cursing and wailing on this forum because “that isn’t the camera I want”, but for those it is targeted at it will be a great camera. For those who it isn’t for, be patient, your turn will come.

Well, as a physicist I do not completely with your curse since a universe with different laws may contain no matter, only energy, which would be a bit boring... But I completely agree with your comment regarding cameras: they are different tools for different needs - as it always has been in the history of photography. Finally you have to find out what serves you best.

 

[Dantana]

I would have already likely purchased the R except for IBIS. My sole reason for going R mount is to use my FD, FL and R lenses without an optical element in the way, but I want IBIS as IS has spoiled me. Otherwise I am very happy with my 7D as it does very well thank you.

And that's totally valid, for you. I would wager that "people who want to adapt vintage glass but really want IS" is not a huge market segment in the way that Canon looks at things.

 

[justaCanonuser]

And that's totally valid, for you. I would wager that "people who want to adapt vintage glass but really want IS" is not a huge market segment in the way that Canon looks at things.

I have seen a lot of Sony users with vintage lenses adapted so far, including vintage Canon and Nikon lenses. I am quite sure that Canon will come up with a sort of IBIS in future, recently they filed a patent even for a DSLR with IBIS according to CR. I guess that they will try to optimize the interplay between IS and IBIS.

That said, on can survive in many situations without any image stabilization. I still use vintage film cameras with which I often have to reside to quite slow shutter speeds, because most films do not allow extreme ISOs. It really depends on the camera's mechanics. With classic rangefinders I can really go down to 1/30 s, sometimes even slower shutter speeds, because there is no mirror slap. And the R is mirrorless, continuing Canon's tradition from 1930s-60s, ...

 

[navastronia]

I have seen a lot of Sony users with vintage lenses adapted so far, including vintage Canon and Nikon lenses. I am quite sure that Canon will come up with a sort of IBIS in future, recently they filed a patent even for a DSLR with IBIS according to CR. I guess that they will try to optimize the interplay between IS and IBIS.

That said, on can survive in many situations without any image stabilization. I still use vintage film cameras with which I often have to reside to quite slow shutter speeds, because most films do not allow extreme ISOs. It really depends on the camera's mechanics. With classic rangefinders I can really go down to 1/30 s, sometimes even slower shutter speeds, because there is no mirror slap. And the R is mirrorless, continuing Canon's tradition from 1930s-60s, ...

One of my all-time favorite lenses is a vintage Yashica 50/1.7 DX that won't focus to infinity without hitting the mirror on a full-frame Canon DSLR. I'm considering taking a dremel tool to the metal to try to shave off enough to make it usable, so I understand the obsession with using vintage glass for any reason at all

 

[Dantana]

One of my all-time favorite lenses is a vintage Yashica 50/1.7 DX that won't focus to infinity without hitting the mirror on a full-frame Canon DSLR. I'm considering taking a dremel tool to the metal to try to shave off enough to make it usable, so I understand the obsession with using vintage glass for any reason at all

Oh, I get it too. I have a little Pentax 50 that I'd love to use, and I'm sure there are some ancient cinema lenses buried in my closet that would be fun to play with.

All I'm saying is that "people who use vintage glass and want IBIS" is a subset of the users of forums like this who are a tiny subset of the camera market.I don't expect that they/we are much of a thought for Canon's plans. Especially when Canon would like you to buy shiny new RF glass.

The high MP R most likely won't be my next camera, but not because I think there's anything that will be wrong about it. It's not for me. I don't need that kind of resolution. The original R is much closer to what I would be looking for, but I'm not really desperate for a new body. My 6D still give me high quality images even with it's limitations. I am curious about what comes out in the next few months though.

 

[justaCanonuser]

One of my all-time favorite lenses is a vintage Yashica 50/1.7 DX that won't focus to infinity without hitting the mirror on a full-frame Canon DSLR. I'm considering taking a dremel tool to the metal to try to shave off enough to make it usable, so I understand the obsession with using vintage glass for any reason at all

There is a lot of wonderful glass out there, if you like the special characters of vintage lenses. I can imagine that the Yashica is a nice lens, and obviously there are already (non-infinity) adapters available (). Specialists such as Quenox will surely come up with a growing line of different adapters for the RF system. I expect first Canon FD-RF adapters to hit the market, for Canon fans, another early candidate could be Leica screw mount M39-RF adapters, because there is a huge selection of M39 lenses still available, including cheap Russian lenses (just check Ebay). And surely a bad boy will come up with a Nikon F-RF nightmare adapter (and vice versa)

 

[uri.raz]

requires an adapter to mount any of my tilt-shift lenses.....

Which MILC does not require an adapter to mount tilt-shift lenses?

 

[tron]

Which MILC does not require an adapter to mount tilt-shift lenses?

He is a troll. Complaing about his obsolete EF lenses which need an adapter to be used in Canon mirrorless cameras but at the same time saying he is in peace of mind because he can put his EF lenses to his Sony camera!

 

[uri.raz]

Go into a Ford dealer and try to buy an F-150 with some, but not all, of the options offered in a specific trim level. Let us know what happens.

Reminds me of a joke...

A dude goes to a BMW dealership and orders a top model with all the options. After three weeks the car arrives, and the dude goes out to show off. He stops in a red light next to a Volkswagen Veetle upgraded to the teeth. He opens the window and asks the beetle driver - do you have heated leather seats? Sure! Do you have a turbo charger? Sure! and so on, until the beetle driver asks "do you have a king size bed in your BMW?" The dud says no, but you couldn't possibly have one in the VW Beetle. The beetle driver opens the back window, and - lo and behold! - there's a king size bed in the car.

The dude takes his car back to the dealership and asks for a king size bed to be installed. The manager says "we'll have to cut the chassis, weld in additional parts, lengthen the car, have safety tests made, it's going to cost you!", and the dude says no problem.

A month later he gets the worked up car, and out he goes to show off to the VW Beetle driver. He drives all around the country, until one day, early in the morning, he finds him on a mountain side overlooking the sun rising over the sea. He calls the BW Driver, who comes out with wet hair and a robe, looks in, and asks "and this is what you got me out of my jacuzzi for?!"

 

[Architect1776]

And that's totally valid, for you. I would wager that "people who want to adapt vintage glass but really want IS" is not a huge market segment in the way that Canon looks at things.

Most likely. Another advantage is smaller, less expensive RF and EF lenses.

 

[Dantana]

Most likely. Another advantage is smaller, less expensive RF and EF lenses.

That's true, and I'd love that. But, is making less expensive lenses part of Canon's strategy? Does it make sense for them business-wise? I'm not sure it does.

 

[Architect1776]

That's true, and I'd love that. But, is making less expensive lenses part of Canon's strategy? Does it make sense for them business-wise? I'm not sure it does.

Not quality of lens just leaving the mechanism out has to save money and the device has to take up room diameter wise to allow for motion and mechanical actuators. Thus far less complex and would actually be more rugged in many ways.
I do not even pretend to know canon marketing but they do have an interest in IBIS thus see the value of it and some of the monster lenses for the RF do not have IS perhaps because of the size of elements, no idea, so it can trickle down to superb smaller and lighter lenses especially in the M series.

 

[neurorx]

My thoughts are consistent with many of you. I've taken my 5D3 all over the world and it's been put through very challenging conditions, taken quite the beating and never failed me. I love my EF L lenses and I am happy with all of them. I didn't make the 5D4 jump (I tried it and returned it), largely because it was not a big enough jump in tech for my needs. The posts are discussing a 1D R and a 5D high megapixel replacement, but I sure hope we see an all around camera that's an improvement over the 5D4 soon, my 5D3 before it goes DNR.